But one lawyer says site victims are on the verge of filing copyright suits.

The proprietor of one of the sleaziest "revenge porn" websites has gone public in a big way. The 28-year-old Colorado Springs man who created the site IsAnybodyDown, Craig Brittain, has been featured in a report airing on Denver TV station CBS4. Reporter Brian Maass also interviewed two women who were featured on the site against their will, and the station says it has been in contact with a half-dozen Colorado women in the same situation.

IsAnybodyDown posts revealing pictures, mostly of women, without their consent, along with their full names and identifying information like phone numbers and Facebook snapshots. If they want to get off the site, victims are directed to a takedown "service" that costs $250. The site is an even sleazier, and possibly more extortionate, version of Hunter Moore's famous site "IsAnybodyUp." (Moore's site has since gone dark, but he's hardly worse for the wear; he's even working on creating his own TV show.)

In the interview, Brittain said his site should just be considered "entertainment" and not extortion. He was also straightforward about his desire to turn the controversial business of "involuntary porn" into a big moneymaker. As for the Facebook information he solicits and posts, Brittain said he just wants readers to get a more holistic view of "who the women are and what they are about," according to the CBS report.

“We don’t want anyone shamed or hurt. We just want the pictures there for entertainment purposes and business," said Brittain, who said he makes $3,000 per month off the site. "I would say our business goal is to become big and profitable... We’re not out for revenge or being malicious. We just want entertainment, we want the money, we’re after making the buck."

Brittain also countered persistent allegations that the supposed "takedown lawyer" David Blade III, who will help women get off the site, doesn't exist. When the CBS reporter asked Brittain if he was actually Blade, Brittain said, “I’m not. Not true at all.”

That contradicts a forensic expert approached by CBS who looked at Blade's e-mails. The expert said that they were “likely sent not just from the same IP address, but from the same computer.”

When asked whether he thought what he was doing was "really sleazy," Brittain offered this: “We live in a really sleazy society.”

CBS4-Denver's interview with Brittain is scheduled to air at 10:00pm tonight, Colorado time. The station also plans to put the raw footage of Maass' nearly one-hour interview with Brittain online.

Will copyright be the tool that pummels IsAnybodyDown?

So-called "involuntary porn" sites are certainly pushing the legal boundaries of free speech—especially when they include thinly veiled attempts to wring money from the people portrayed. One question that springs to mind when hearing stories of those like the victims who spoke with Maass: since they took the photos themselves, couldn't copyright law be a tool for getting their content off the site?

Copyright law is intended to promote the production of more creative works; it isn't really meant for shutting down questionable activities like "revenge porn." And Marc Randazza, an attorney who's been out to get Brittain since learning about the site, is aware of that. "But when it comes down to it, someone owns that photograph, and it [Brittain's use] sure isn't fair use," Randazza said. In fact, he believes that copyright law "will probably be [Brittain's] downfall."

Photographs are automatically copyrighted by their "author," typically the person who took the photo, as soon as they are created. However, before a copyright infringement lawsuit can be filed, the owner of the photo has to register the work with the Copyright Office. That process can take a few months.

The burden of going through that process—and the wait involved—is what often pushes victims on IsAnybodyDown to just pay $250 to the "takedown lawyer" advertised on the site, Randazza said. Lots of people end up paying, despite the fact Randazza has offered to represent victims pro bono.

"I have heard from girls who said they paid him," Randazza told Ars today. "The problem is, if you pay him, how do you know he's going to dispose of your photographs, even if he promises he does? He was already impersonating a lawyer. Do you think he's not holding on to the pictures?"

Not everyone has been deterred, however.

"I can tell you, there are a number of people ready to file suit as soon as their copyright registration comes in the mail," Randazza said. "I told this guy I was coming for him, and I don't break my word."

A finding of copyright infringement could lead to huge damages against Brittain—up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement.

Some sites can claim a "safe harbor" from copyright litigation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) if they do certain things, like promptly respond to takedown notices. But a site like IsAnybodyDown, which doesn't even have a DMCA agent to contact about a takedown, is a long way from being able to claim that safe harbor.

In addition to pursuing the copyright angle, Randazza said he's working with two victims who say they were under 18 in photos that have been featured on IsAnybodyDown. If that's true, Brittain might be liable under child pornography laws, which could lead to even larger civil penalties or worse. "It's difficult to get law enforcement to care about a lot of things, but they get interested in child pornography cases," said Randazza.

For victims who didn't take their own photos, a tougher path

Many of the photos on the site are clearly owned by the women they are portraying—both victims who spoke to CBS4-Denver, for example, took the photos themselves.

But not all of those portrayed on these sites did take their own pictures. The term "revenge porn" originated because victims often suspect the pictures are put on such sites by jilted ex-lovers.

Copyright law allows for large damage awards and often for the collection of attorneys' fees. For a victim of "revenge porn" who didn't take the photo, however, it might be tougher to take legal action. Other laws that could conceivably be broken, like defamation or invasion of privacy, don't have the large damage awards that make filing a copyright suit attractive to lawyers. In addition, these sites may have a defense in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which prevents sites from being held liable for user-posted content.

Other lawyers appear willing to take a gamble that they can beat away any Section 230 defense as well. Two women who were featured against their will on a site called Texxxan.com filed a lawsuit last month alleging invasion of privacy.

However, those who don't own the copyright to their photos are at a disadvantage. Using something like a privacy claim or a right of publicity claim to go after a revenge porn entrepreneur is going to be more difficult, Randazza acknowledged. "They're a little harder, and they don't have the same sledgehammer effect [as copyright]," he said.

I remember the comment section of the last revenge porn related article devolving into little more than slut shaming and internet expert legalese, so I won't bother to keep too keenly abreast of what's spoken here. I will say, however, that as a journalist writing an article and not an editorial, objectiveness should be held to a more strict standard. Tossing in small snipes like calling Brittain's sleaze quote a 'gem' does nothing for the integrity of the article. The guy's shitty actions alone, presented objectively, would have any rational person draw the conclusion that he and his operation is a blight upon us all without needing to drive the mob with overt narrative.

I guess I just don't feel *too* bad for people who take compromising pictures of themselves, or let someone else take said pictures.

People in a loving relationship with another person often do things that they would not want others to watch. Many men want to take nude pictures of their wives/girlfriends and the women are often willing to oblige even when they have misgivings, for the sake of the relationship and to show their trust. To have the results later displayed in public when that was never intended is just wrong. To have the contact details of the person displayed with the photos is plain disgusting.

Blaming the person who is the subject of the photo shows a complete lack of empathy for these people. Also a lack of understanding of human nature and all that goes along with it.

Is it telling that the biggest legal 'sledgehammer' out there is for copyright infringement?

Most definitely. This guy is a class A sleazeball and the best we can come up with is a trumped up legal tactic for something as pansy as copyright? Isn't he committing, at the very least, extortion and criminal intimidation?

I'm surprised he's willing to be so public. If I were an angry father, I might decide to break his legs. All three of them.

It goes to show how fucked up the copy rights policy is when people can't even own their own image, but large lobbying media industry types can throw money at the system and claim everything as theirs or claim things forever.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have no problem playing the long game against people like this. I can tolerate the "embarrassment" of having to leave the photos up so I can go after them for criminal copyright infringement.

Even while our justice system slowly meanders its way over to fix this - our society needs to show a vehement, violent rejection of it. This is the kind of stuff I'd expect to overhear frightened NPCs talking about in a Deus Ex game, not something I'd expect to read about actually happening.

Does Anonymous not have any teeth anymore? Where did all of the hacktivists go to? I'm not condoning extralegal activities, but I am saying that in this case there could be a greater good to be served by this man's webservers being taken down until a court can make it official.

Meanwhile, I don't think filing a DMCA complaint requires a work to be registered. Could Ars maybe put a link to a template for filing DMCA complaints up for people this jackass has victimized?

Does Anonymous not have any teeth anymore? Where did all of the hacktivists go to?

Anonymous doesn't have to bother with this one. Unless the whole thing is a fake marketing gimmick or some kind of hoax; he won't have signed releases and proof that his "models" are over 18 on file. All it will take is for just one of them to be a minor... or even to have been a minor when the pictures were taken... and he's off to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. And he's thoughtfully providing the FBI all the rope it needs to string him up and hang him out to dry.

Don't you need to have a signed wavier or something to use a persons image for profit? or do they blur out the people faces?

You are thinking of a model release. It releases the publisher (the website in this case) from liability.

You can publish anything you like, but without a release, you are at risk of being sued by the people in the picture or video.

And no, they don't blur out anything.

Another thing to consider is that these amateur videos do not keep any kind of records as required by law, and the website can be targeted as a secondary producer. The DoJ has to bring the case, it's not something that can be handled in civil court, but you can be sure that amateurs aren't keeping the required documentation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Prot ... cement_Act

Whether they are out to defend the hapless victims or to express outrage against abuse they strengthen everybody's resolve against filth. They're proving once more that no matter how many souls the army of cynicism takes there will always be a few who are brave, moral and determined to prevail.

Don't you need to have a signed wavier or something to use a persons image for profit? or do they blur out the people faces?

You are thinking of a model release. It releases the publisher (the website in this case) from liability.

You can publish anything you like, but without a release, you are at risk of being sued by the people in the picture or video.

And no, they don't blur out anything.

Another thing to consider is that these amateur videos do not keep any kind of records as required by law, and the website can be targeted as a secondary producer. The DoJ has to bring the case, it's not something that can be handled in civil court, but you can be sure that amateurs aren't keeping the required documentation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Prot ... cement_Act

In this case, I actually support the stupid porn laws. For in this case, only the innocent are being harmed. It is a real shame that people once thought their private lives were private. A real shame.

Does Anonymous not have any teeth anymore? Where did all of the hacktivists go to? I'm not condoning extralegal activities, but I am saying that in this case there could be a greater good to be served by this man's webservers being taken down until a court can make it official.

You actually are condoning extralegal activities. Nothing Anonymous or hacktivists do is legal.

Quote:

Meanwhile, I don't think filing a DMCA complaint requires a work to be registered. Could Ars maybe put a link to a template for filing DMCA complaints up for people this jackass has victimized?

Only the copyright holder can file a DMCA takedown. You can't file for someone else.

Question: why is this man still alive? Seriously. This guy is going to get a picture of the worng girl on this website and find himself in a shallow grave.

Because we live in a society where laws are supposed to apply to everybody, regardless of how you feel about their character or moral failings. That's why posting pictures naked pictures of your ex without permission is illegal.